Vascular Specialist

The SVS, in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), has launched a new leadership development program. Its aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. The program is open to academic and community practice vascular surgeons from the US or Canada who are 5-10 years out from training. Learn more here.

The SVS, in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), has launched a new leadership development program. Its aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. The program is open to academic and community practice vascular surgeons from the US or Canada who are 5-10 years out from training. Learn more here.

The SVS, in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), has launched a new leadership development program. Its aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. The program is open to academic and community practice vascular surgeons from the US or Canada who are 5-10 years out from training. Learn more here.

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly one in three surgical residents report experiencing gender-based discrimination, and one in six report racial discrimination, with mistreatment linked to burnout and suicidal thoughts, according to data presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, the cross-sectional national survey of 7,409 residents across all 262 surgical residency programs investigated the impact of mistreatment on burnout rates and suicidal thoughts. The sample included 99.3% of all eligible U.S. trainees.

The survey found that 31.9% of all respondents – 65.1% of women and 10% of men – said they had experienced discrimination because of their self-reported gender, and 16.6% had experienced racial discrimination. In the case of both gender-based and racial discrimination, nearly half of respondents who had experienced these identified patients and patients’ families as the source.

One-third of female respondents (33%) had been on the receiving end of verbal emotional abuse, as had 28.3% of male respondents. Most of the abuse came from other surgeons.

Around 1 in 10 residents – 19.9% of women and 3.9% of men – had experienced sexual harassment. In around one-third of cases, the source was other surgeons, and in one-third the source was patients and their families.

Nearly half of all the residents said they had experienced some form of mistreatment, 19% said they experienced it a few times a month, and 30.9% said it happened a few times a year.

The survey found that 38.5% of residents experienced the symptoms of burnout – such as emotional exhaustion and depersonalization – at least once a week. The incidence was higher in women than in men (42.4% vs. 35.9%), with women reporting a higher prevalence of emotional exhaustion than men. Nearly 1 in 20 (4.5%) reported having suicidal thoughts (5.3% of women and 3.9% of men).

Researchers found that the more mistreatment a resident experienced, the greater the frequency of burnout symptoms. Those who reported experiencing mistreatment a few times a year had a twofold greater odds of burnout, compared with those who had not experienced any mistreatment. Those who experienced mistreatment a few times a month or more had nearly threefold higher odds of burnout. Similarly, increasing exposure to mistreatment was also associated with stepwise increases in the odds of suicidal thoughts.

“Mistreatment is a frequent experience for general surgery residents in the United States, and is associated with burnout and suicidal thoughts,” wrote Yue-Yung Hu, MD, from the Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors. “Our results provide initial insights on how we may build safer, more equitable and more effective education environments for trainees.”

The study was supported by the American College of Surgeons, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the American Board of Surgery. Two authors were supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and one by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. One author was an employee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

SOURCE: Hu Y-Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1903759.

SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly one in three surgical residents report experiencing gender-based discrimination, and one in six report racial discrimination, with mistreatment linked to burnout and suicidal thoughts, according to data presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, the cross-sectional national survey of 7,409 residents across all 262 surgical residency programs investigated the impact of mistreatment on burnout rates and suicidal thoughts. The sample included 99.3% of all eligible U.S. trainees.

The survey found that 31.9% of all respondents – 65.1% of women and 10% of men – said they had experienced discrimination because of their self-reported gender, and 16.6% had experienced racial discrimination. In the case of both gender-based and racial discrimination, nearly half of respondents who had experienced these identified patients and patients’ families as the source.

One-third of female respondents (33%) had been on the receiving end of verbal emotional abuse, as had 28.3% of male respondents. Most of the abuse came from other surgeons.

Around 1 in 10 residents – 19.9% of women and 3.9% of men – had experienced sexual harassment. In around one-third of cases, the source was other surgeons, and in one-third the source was patients and their families.

Nearly half of all the residents said they had experienced some form of mistreatment, 19% said they experienced it a few times a month, and 30.9% said it happened a few times a year.

The survey found that 38.5% of residents experienced the symptoms of burnout – such as emotional exhaustion and depersonalization – at least once a week. The incidence was higher in women than in men (42.4% vs. 35.9%), with women reporting a higher prevalence of emotional exhaustion than men. Nearly 1 in 20 (4.5%) reported having suicidal thoughts (5.3% of women and 3.9% of men).

Researchers found that the more mistreatment a resident experienced, the greater the frequency of burnout symptoms. Those who reported experiencing mistreatment a few times a year had a twofold greater odds of burnout, compared with those who had not experienced any mistreatment. Those who experienced mistreatment a few times a month or more had nearly threefold higher odds of burnout. Similarly, increasing exposure to mistreatment was also associated with stepwise increases in the odds of suicidal thoughts.

“Mistreatment is a frequent experience for general surgery residents in the United States, and is associated with burnout and suicidal thoughts,” wrote Yue-Yung Hu, MD, from the Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors. “Our results provide initial insights on how we may build safer, more equitable and more effective education environments for trainees.”

The study was supported by the American College of Surgeons, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the American Board of Surgery. Two authors were supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and one by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. One author was an employee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

SOURCE: Hu Y-Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1903759.

SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly one in three surgical residents report experiencing gender-based discrimination, and one in six report racial discrimination, with mistreatment linked to burnout and suicidal thoughts, according to data presented at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, the cross-sectional national survey of 7,409 residents across all 262 surgical residency programs investigated the impact of mistreatment on burnout rates and suicidal thoughts. The sample included 99.3% of all eligible U.S. trainees.

The survey found that 31.9% of all respondents – 65.1% of women and 10% of men – said they had experienced discrimination because of their self-reported gender, and 16.6% had experienced racial discrimination. In the case of both gender-based and racial discrimination, nearly half of respondents who had experienced these identified patients and patients’ families as the source.

One-third of female respondents (33%) had been on the receiving end of verbal emotional abuse, as had 28.3% of male respondents. Most of the abuse came from other surgeons.

Around 1 in 10 residents – 19.9% of women and 3.9% of men – had experienced sexual harassment. In around one-third of cases, the source was other surgeons, and in one-third the source was patients and their families.

Nearly half of all the residents said they had experienced some form of mistreatment, 19% said they experienced it a few times a month, and 30.9% said it happened a few times a year.

The survey found that 38.5% of residents experienced the symptoms of burnout – such as emotional exhaustion and depersonalization – at least once a week. The incidence was higher in women than in men (42.4% vs. 35.9%), with women reporting a higher prevalence of emotional exhaustion than men. Nearly 1 in 20 (4.5%) reported having suicidal thoughts (5.3% of women and 3.9% of men).

Researchers found that the more mistreatment a resident experienced, the greater the frequency of burnout symptoms. Those who reported experiencing mistreatment a few times a year had a twofold greater odds of burnout, compared with those who had not experienced any mistreatment. Those who experienced mistreatment a few times a month or more had nearly threefold higher odds of burnout. Similarly, increasing exposure to mistreatment was also associated with stepwise increases in the odds of suicidal thoughts.

“Mistreatment is a frequent experience for general surgery residents in the United States, and is associated with burnout and suicidal thoughts,” wrote Yue-Yung Hu, MD, from the Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors. “Our results provide initial insights on how we may build safer, more equitable and more effective education environments for trainees.”

The study was supported by the American College of Surgeons, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and the American Board of Surgery. Two authors were supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and one by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. One author was an employee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

SOURCE: Hu Y-Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1903759.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), is launching an exciting new program meant to provide a meaningful leadership development experience for a select group of mid-career vascular surgeons. This highly interactive and unique program will begin in 2020 and be implemented over a six-month period. The aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. Learn more here.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), is launching an exciting new program meant to provide a meaningful leadership development experience for a select group of mid-career vascular surgeons. This highly interactive and unique program will begin in 2020 and be implemented over a six-month period. The aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. Learn more here.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), in collaboration with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society (VESS) and the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery (SCVS), is launching an exciting new program meant to provide a meaningful leadership development experience for a select group of mid-career vascular surgeons. This highly interactive and unique program will begin in 2020 and be implemented over a six-month period. The aim is to help our community of vascular surgeons reach their full potential as leaders and make the most positive impact possible in our specialty, their place of work, their community and other areas of importance in their life. Learn more here.

The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.

“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”

When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”

When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”

Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.

The hearing followed a partisan pattern.

Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.

“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”

Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.

When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.

Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.

When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.

“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.

[email protected]

The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.

“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”

When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”

When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”

Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.

The hearing followed a partisan pattern.

Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.

“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”

Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.

When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.

Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.

When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.

“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.

[email protected]

The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.

“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”

When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”

When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”

Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.

The hearing followed a partisan pattern.

Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.

“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”

Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.

When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.

Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.

When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.

“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.

[email protected]

The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.

Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”

H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.

But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.

He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”

Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.

[email protected]

The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.

Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”

H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.

But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.

He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”

Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.

[email protected]

The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.

©Mathier/thinkstockphotos.com

During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.

Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”

H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.

But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.

He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”

Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

COPENHAGEN – Selected antidiabetes medications appear to blunt the increased risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes, according to a Danish national case control registry study.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

This benefit applies to the newer antidiabetic agents – specifically, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, and the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – and metformin as well, Merete Osler, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, neither insulin nor the sulfonylureas showed any signal of a protective effect against development of dementia. In fact, the use of sulfonylureas was associated with a small but statistically significant 7% increased risk, added Dr. Osler, of the University of Copenhagen.

Elsewhere at the meeting, investigators tapped a Swedish national registry to demonstrate that individuals with type 1 diabetes have a sharply reduced risk of developing schizophrenia.
 

Type 2 diabetes medications and dementia

Dr. Osler and colleagues are among several groups of investigators who have previously shown that patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of dementia.

“This has raised the question of the role of dysregulated glucose metabolism in the development of this neurodegenerative disorder, and the possible effect of antidiabetic medications,” she noted.

To further explore this issue, which links two great ongoing global epidemics, Dr. Osler and coinvestigators conducted a nested case-control study including all 176,250 patients with type 2 diabetes in the comprehensive Danish National Diabetes Register for 1995-2012. The 11,619 patients with type 2 diabetes who received a dementia diagnosis were matched with 46,476 type 2 diabetes patients without dementia. The objective was to determine associations between dementia and ever-use and cumulative dose of antidiabetes drugs, alone and in combination, in logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbid conditions, marital status, diabetic complications, and year of dementia diagnosis.

Patients who had ever used metformin had an adjusted 6% reduction in the likelihood of dementia compared with metformin nonusers, a modest but statistically significant difference. Those on a DPP4 inhibitor had a 20% reduction in risk. The GLP1 analogs were associated with a 42% decrease in risk. So were the SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-response relationship was evident: The higher the cumulative exposure to these agents, the lower the odds of dementia.

Combination therapy is common in type 2 diabetes, so the investigators scrutinized the impact of a variety of multidrug combinations. The clear winner in terms of the magnitude of associated reduction in dementia risk were the combinations including an SGLT2 inhibitor, with a 62% relative risk reduction. Combinations including a DPP4 inhibitor or GLP1 analog were also associated with significantly reduced dementia risk.

Records of glycemic control in the form of hemoglobin A_1c values were available on only 1,446 type 2 diabetic dementia patients and 4,003 matched controls. An analysis that incorporated this variable showed that the observed anti-dementia effect of selected diabetes drugs was independent of glycemic control, according to Dr. Osler.

The protective effect appeared to extend to both Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementias, although firm conclusions can’t be drawn on this score because the study was insufficiently powered to address that issue.

Dr. Osler noted that the Danish study confirms a recent Taiwanese study showing an apparent protective effect against dementia for metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 1;10(1):37-48).

“Ours is the first study on the newer diabetic drugs, so our results need to be confirmed,” she pointed out.

If confirmed, however, it would warrant exploration of these drugs more generally as potential interventions to prevent dementia. That could open a whole new chapter in the remarkable story of the SGLT2 inhibitors, a class of drugs originally developed for treatment of type 2 diabetes but which in major randomized clinical trials later proved to be so effective in the treatment of heart failure that they are now considered cardiology drugs first.

Asked if she thinks these antidiabetes agents have a general neuroprotective effect or, instead, that the observed reduced risk of dementia is a function of patients being treated better early on with modern drugs, the psychiatrist replied, “I think it might be a combination of both, especially because we find different risk estimates between the drugs.”

Dr. Osler reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was funded by the Danish Diabetes Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, and several other foundations.

The full study details were published online shortly before her presentation at ECNP 2019 (Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1. pii: EJE-19-0259.R1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0259).

Type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia risk

Kristina Melkersson, MD, PhD, presented a cohort study that utilized Swedish national registries to examine the relationship between type 1 diabetes and schizophrenia. The study comprised 1,745,977 individuals, of whom 10,117 had type 1 diabetes, who were followed for a median of 9.7 and maximum of 18 years from their 13th birthday. During follow-up, 1,280 individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia and 649 others with schizoaffective disorder. The adjusted risk of schizophrenia was 70% lower in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, there was no difference in the risk of schizoaffective disorder in the type 1 diabetic versus nondiabetic subjects.

The Swedish data confirm the findings of an earlier Finnish national study showing that the risk of schizophrenia is reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;64(8):894-9). These findings raise the intriguing possibility that autoimmunity somehow figures into the etiology of the psychiatric disorder. Other investigators have previously reported a reduced prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with schizophrenia, noted Dr. Melkersson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Osler M. ECNP Abstract P180. Melkersson K. Abstract 81.

As the holiday shopping season approaches, the SVS Foundation would like to remind you to set up your AmazonSmile account and designate the SVS Foundation as your charity. It’s easy to begin. Start at smile.amazon.com and search ‘Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation.’ Once you choose the Foundation, start shopping! Amazon will donate 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases. Every little bit makes a difference. Questions? Reach out to [email protected].

As the holiday shopping season approaches, the SVS Foundation would like to remind you to set up your AmazonSmile account and designate the SVS Foundation as your charity. It’s easy to begin. Start at smile.amazon.com and search ‘Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation.’ Once you choose the Foundation, start shopping! Amazon will donate 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases. Every little bit makes a difference. Questions? Reach out to [email protected].

As the holiday shopping season approaches, the SVS Foundation would like to remind you to set up your AmazonSmile account and designate the SVS Foundation as your charity. It’s easy to begin. Start at smile.amazon.com and search ‘Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation.’ Once you choose the Foundation, start shopping! Amazon will donate 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases. Every little bit makes a difference. Questions? Reach out to [email protected].